Slashdot Mirror
British Computer Society Is Officially At Civil War
An anonymous reader writes "A vote of no confidence against the current board of directors has erupted in what is possibly the first nerd war, raging throughout the British Computer Society. More financial- and spreadsheet-related fixations and less computer science have made a few members cross; plus they don't like the new name 'The Chartered Institute of IT.' Here are more specific details on the extraordinary emergency general meeting on July 1, where members will vote to decide the fate of the board of directors."
At first I thought it was about British Computer Society declaring war against the UK government.
Meh. nothingtoseeheremovealong
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
Basically, you can attain levels of experience that you can then use to demonstrate to potential new employers that you have experience, and skills used in industry. Unfortunately, it's all very management biased, and anti actually doing any computing biased. For example, IIRC, the various programming skills start at level 1 qualifications max out at level 6, while management skills start at level 5 and max out at level 10.
I had to meet with a bunch of BCS reps when my course was re-accredited, and the experience matches up with what the summary says. They were obsessing over whether the mathematics of CS were too difficult and all kinds of bogus concerns
I think their problem is that higher level courses are (inherently) not an "everyone's invited" thing. Because not everyone will succeed. And that's how it should be. They're difficult if they're done right, because they include a lot hard-line theory behind the soft 'Let's do Java' exterior. The BCS just can't seem to accept this though. They want to pervert the courses to make them easier, basically
More people on courses = more power to them? Or maybe they get extra money for getting a certain % of the population onto courses? I have no idea of their motives but whatever they are, they're going about them the wrong way
Under the "old way", the benefits were lots of lectures that you got to go to on various subjects, plus the chance to network with other professionals. Useful stuff really; some of those lectures were great.
Under the 'new way', they've altered the way the "chartered" membership works; as it was in the old days, you could become a chartered IT professional without having to prove anything other than you'd stayed in the IT sector for 5 years. Now there are a series of exams to pass and frequent re-evaluation to maintain it (more in line with chartered engineer status from the engineering professions).
Really, I think a lot of the new changes are to make the BCS more relevant to what commerce wants to know, rather than being a comp sci enclave. The thrust has changed direction, though this isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Having membership of the BCS gives you nothing when it comes to getting a job. A CV glowing with past achievements; actually doing things, delivering things and demonstrating that you have the cuts and weals from real-world engagements is worth much more than being a fellow of a society. I'd have to explain to potential employers who the BCS are and what they do.
I think the no confidence voters have been a bit slow to get their message out, the BCS has already sent out shiny information packs explaining why you should vote for them (I abstained due to this information shortage). I voted no about scrapping the rule of 50 members for a vote of no confidence though, seems like a nice democratic safeguard to me.
Definitely the BCS has been dumbed down successively over the past 16 years I have been a full member, I suspect that this is because they basically want more members so lower the entry bar, in order to get the membership funds in their coffers. I definitely did not like the CITP membership level, it is the British COMPUTER socienty, that should cover anything in the field of computing and not just information technology.
Anyway, I think a rocket up the ass like this is good for any organisation so we will see what comes out of it.
It represents bragging rights when applying for new jobs –a CV with "I have BCS level 9 qualifications" on it helps at some companies.
... so you have to double-class to manager to join?
(All this stuff about skill levels sounds funny. :P )
It's not a real nerd war until someone gets hit in the head with a plastic light saber!
Monstar L
Pirate Party UK
FORS could be Fellow of the Operational Research Society
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Its a society run by and for people who cut their teeth on 1950s and 60s mainframes. Nothing wrong with that, but people seem to assume it has any relevance or authority today. It doesn't. No one I know in IT belongs to it or is even the slightest bit interested in it. Its the computing equivalent of a historic car club with similar types of people as members.
Officially at war would mean a deceleration of war. Even though the intend to use deadly weapons is not needed, it is to be expected. I doubt that that is the case, even without reading the articles.
After reading them, it is clear that is is a bad use of the word war. In the linked article one talks about "a row" and the other talks about "concerns". Now I understand that the British are very good and underplaying, but calling a war a row or a concerns is even to cool for them.
Even the fake war on drugs, terrorism and piracy is more of a war then this.
Sure it is a headline catcher. But if people are not willing to read it if it isn't, you should not make it louder, you should consider not posting it at all. This is not (yet) Foxnews.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
When they introduced the Chartered status they automatically upgraded every member. Then the set the boundaries at a certain number of years experience, plus qualifications. Then they changed it to a framework whereby you had to have managed a certain number of people, and had a certain size budget. Then they changed it so that you had to have complete strategic accountability in a significant organisation. They're completely alienating a significant proportion of their members, who are technical professionals, not guys in boardrooms.
Here's how it goes: Somebody has a great idea to form an association of some sort. Then, the idea of the actual association gets lost. Why? Narcissistic empathy-lacking morons are attracted to it because they can control the apparatus instead of deliver actual services. Then, the people who started the service get angry and fight back, and we get the situation we have here. Usually, the good guys lose and are forced to start their own splinter group. The new group never gets as big as the original because the original group has all the clout and relationships.
I know a local "chamber of commerce" type organization. They spend all their time in committee meetings, electing general secretaries, and deciding who gets what title than actually promoting local business. Their association is a joke - it's obvious to everyone but them. To themselves, they're king ding-a-ling and they strut around like they're important people.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
"More financial- and spreadsheet-related fixations and less computer science have made a few members cross"
I've read all the links provided, I don't see anyone referring to this whatsoever. All of the discussion centers on whether BCS remains a member-driven professional group and charity, or a top-down corporately-structured business. To quote the second link in its big-font and boldface summary:
Among the active members of the BCS, there are many dissatisfactions with how the Society is run; but when it comes specifically to why this EGM has been called, it all boils down to the issues of governance and probity. [http://bcsreform.wikispaces.com/Message+re+EGM+call]
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
There will be. Just as soon as the damned EMACS is burned off the face of this world, we can finally have peace. Until then, the corpses will just keep getting stacked up.
the various programming skills start at level 1 qualifications max out at level 6, while management skills start at level 5 and max out at level 10.
Call me an out-of-place mathematician, but what's the difference between a scale from 5 - 10 and a scale from 1 - 6? They both have six levels. The fact that they re-use known symbols (sequential Arabic digits) to name those levels is just convenience. Numbering management with a minimum qualification level of 5 is consistent with standard assumptions about managers (that they don't know what a baseline is), so maybe the numbering system is really a subtle joke?
It's World War III, no wait ... ... ... ... ...
It's Civil War, no wait
It's only in UK, no wait
It's only a society, no wait
It's only some nerds, no wait
It's nothing.
You just don't see the word "cross" used very much anymore. It's just the perfect word sometimes.
I agree with that, but I would point out that they probably try to represent this to folks outside their organization as being one scale instead of separate programmer and manager scale. Which would tend to show a manager at level 7 as more experienced than a programmer at level 6.
Oh, ChIT. I can see how that might be a problem.
From what I know of Australia your icon should be a passport. Because every single last one of you must be somewhere else by all the aussies I meet around the world. If you sit in the middle seat of an aircraft, one person next to you will be from Australia/New Zealand. Same thing.
Runs for it.
Still I wonder. What makes you such globe trotters. Want to see the world or just want to get the hell out of that place?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
No, this is a British argument, no killing needed. Just knock over his teacup and steal his cake.
If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
As a Pom who has been developing software professionally for 20 years, and who did a fair amount of academic CS too, I've looked repeatedly during that time at joining BCS.
Damm right it needs modernisation. They barely seem to know what a computer does. The question is whether the current track will make that worse or better. And from where I sit, as an interested outside observer, it looks worse. The active distain for anyone who actually programs, rather than (genuflect) manages has always been there, and now the management types are running the asylum it's getting worse. In BCS-land, DMR (say) would be heavily outranked by anything in a suit, and I don't want to be any part of an organisation like that.
For us /.ers, BCS is and will remain completely, utterly and spectacularly irrelevant. And if BCS is irrelevant and hostile to us, what the hell business does it have proclaiming itself as the institute for the industry of which we are the engine room?
By the way, you have checked the credentials of those calling the EGM? They are far from random members. And the vilification and threats heaped on those who dared to question the current course has been shameful.
I'm sticking happily in ACM, which does still manage to pay serious attention to the technical side of life.